662:
674:
up to our standards. (I did enjoy the sentence: "She's a self-described neighbor of
Jarrett Walker, and the two have brainstormed transportation solutions, including after a chance brainstorming session that started on a TriMet bus." With four footnotes, no less!) For a decent example of a Portland mayoral candidate article for a candidate who didn't win, I'd look at
56:. Rough consensus seems to be that she's not quite over the notability bar yet - the minority of "keep" opinions don't identify which sources are supposed to establish notability. Redirection is a sensible alternative to deletion here given that this is a likely search term, and it allows merging content from the history to the extent editors deem it appropriate.
279:(her own campaign website, raw tables of election results) that are not support for notability at all. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 3 if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is legitimate grounds for a Knowledge (XXG) article about her to already exist today.
977:, and deem some types of coverage (such as campaign coverage of a non-winning candidate for political office who has no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons outside the election campaign) as not notability-making contexts. And besides, even with new sources added, far too many of them are Twitter tweets and other
571:
without prejudice. This very much seems like a borderline case, we can certainly dredge up things related to her restaurant, her activism, and her city planning stuff from PSU, but it's clear the main key to her notability will be contingent on becoming mayor (or not). So I think it should either be
673:
threshold. But it will take work to find those sources, and work to synthesize them into a proper article that clearly establishes her significance. I'll watch this discussion, and if there's significant improvement to the article I'll probably vote keep. But as it currently stands, it's not nearly
390:
exempt themselves from NPOL on the grounds of having campaign coverage. So making a candidate notable enough for special treatment over and above other candidates is not a question of showing that campaign coverage exists — it's a question of showing that her campaign coverage has
377:
city that has mayoral elections and media — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, then our established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates would be inherently meaningless, because
620:
people who run unsuccessfully for mayor are not notable. We would have to find sourcing far from the
Portland media market to show her as notable. Local mayoral candidates are always going to get coverage, but we have absolutely decided not all mayoral candidates are
1120:
doesn't either, whereas GNG states: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, which is the case
964:
be exempted from having to pass NPOL and NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless. GNG does not just count the number of footnotes present in the article, keeping everybody who has more than two and ignoring all other considerations — GNG most certainly
840:
content about her, not just rebroadcast or republish content previously produced by a different media outlet in
Portland. And at any rate, candidates aren't automatically special the moment you can show that they've had a one, two or three source
572:
kept without prejudice to discussing or deleting post-election, or it should be merged without prejudice to being split after the election if it works out. (also: declaring a personal bias (not COI) towards her, discount my thoughts if necessary)
399:
for enduring significance. In other words, the question that has to be answered is whether there's a substantive reason why the world will still need this article to exist in 2030 even if she loses, not just whether she has campaign coverage.
668:
As a
Portlander who is following this race, and has worked on Knowledge (XXG) articles for many local politicians, I'm unsure. It does seem likely that, given enough digging, enough high quality sources exist to clear the
340:
per GNG. I live in
Portland and hear her name in the news. A search at Google News yields over 2,000 results. Sure, many of these are likely to be passing or brief mentions of her candidacy, but there are also pieces like
1028:
She's only really locally notable for being a mayoral candidate. Even though she's been outspoken recently on antifa, that's mainly a direct result of her candidacy. If she wins the election, we can restore the article.
213:
831:
Local coverage being reaggregated by other sources through syndication is not a notability booster. For "Playboy, Washington Times, WNYC" to speak to her notability, they would have to have assigned their
922:, appears to pass WP:GNG so WP:NPOL is irrelevant, remember that NPOL only comes into play if a subject doesnt pass GNG... If they pass GNG thats the end of the story, they’re notable.
817:. Playboy, Washington Times, WNYC picking up local OPB interview are sufficient in my view. There's still work to be done to improve the article...but ain't that always how it goes. -
263:, she would have to either (a) demonstrate that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy (the
296:
207:
166:
1062:
316:
454:
849:
context — to make a candidate notable enough for permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia, what needs to be shown is that her candidacy passes the
98:
643:
448:
443:
If she was only getting coverage for her campaign then her page should be deleted, but she has also got a bit of coverage as a restauranteur, so she passes
113:
642:. Maybe she has some other claim to notability, and the article can be rewritten to say that she's known for that instead, but I'm not seeing it. Her
414:
I understand. AlessandroTiandelli333 has shared more sources below. There's enough to draft a bio (if short) of her career and personal life, IMO. ---
173:
1011:
903:
508:
481:
477:
53:
589:
mayoral candidates don't clear the threshold when most mayors don't. Owning a bakery etc... also doesn't go beyond a local interest story.
342:
1043:
139:
134:
143:
93:
86:
17:
740:
777:
463:
275:
test). But this makes no claim that would have gotten her an article independent of the candidacy, and is referenced entirely to
126:
228:
599:
195:
107:
103:
456:
1180:
40:
1078:
That essay only discusses presidential elections, and says nothing whatsoever about elections at the municipal level.
459:
450:
978:
944:
exempted from having to pass NPOL just because some coverage of the election campaign happens to exist — coverage of
276:
1116:, under the subheader, "examples". It says nothing about "every" other things mentioned above. As a matter of fact,
511:
as a plausible search term. Election pages can be a good place for reliably sourced information about candidates. --
369:
Non-winning mayoral candidates do not pass GNG just because local campaign coverage exists. Local campaign coverage
705:
422:
353:
452:
626:
189:
927:
692:
One point contributing to her notability that could be expanded is her impact on the national discourse around
651:
1163:
1130:
1107:
1073:
1048:
1035:
1020:
990:
931:
914:
874:
826:
801:
717:
687:
655:
630:
612:
581:
559:
538:
520:
497:
467:
429:
409:
360:
328:
308:
288:
185:
68:
1159:
753:
638:. If she's best known for losing two mayoral elections, as our article claims, then she's not notable per
267:
test), or (b) show a depth and range and volume of nationalizing media coverage that makes her candidacy
1176:
822:
713:
683:
415:
346:
36:
235:
272:
622:
130:
1147:
1117:
1058:
923:
647:
221:
1151:
607:
1030:
595:
345:
which are specifically about her. I think editors just need more time to flesh out her entry. ---
846:
731:
1155:
1103:
986:
870:
555:
516:
405:
324:
304:
284:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1175:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
850:
639:
603:
396:
256:
201:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1126:
1069:
910:
818:
797:
709:
679:
577:
534:
493:
1003:
895:
814:
810:
670:
444:
244:
661:
122:
74:
767:
248:
1015:
247:
of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate for mayor of her city, not
59:
485:
271:
than the thousands of other aspiring mayoral candidates across the United States (the
591:
264:
1099:
982:
866:
551:
512:
401:
320:
300:
280:
1014:. I concur that if WP:GNG is met (and I think it is), then WP:NPOL is not needed.
160:
1122:
1065:
906:
793:
741:"'I am antifa': Sarah Iannarone forces runoff in bid to become Portland's mayor"
646:
might plausibly be notable, but that's still not evidence that she is herself. —
573:
530:
489:
1094:
routine if it doesn't establish a credible reason why her candidacy is somehow
675:
865:
remember her name and be looking for information about her in 2030 anyway.
255:
a notable office, not just run for one, to qualify for an article under
1090:
show evidence of campaign coverage — so such coverage most certainly
693:
529:
Agree, and therefore a partial merge with some info is preferable.
1150:, if she does emerge victorious then perharps the article may be
1171:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
704:
article that started it is not. (It was also mentioned in
739:
Valerie
Richardson, Valerie Richardson (June 2, 2020).
251:
as passing any of our inclusion tests. A person has to
156:
152:
148:
220:
484:
should be mentioned there). (Otherwise, redirect per
1063:
Knowledge (XXG):What is and is not routine coverage
234:
730:From "national" coverage mentioned she passes GNG
395:to a degree that would get her candidacy over the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1183:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:Note: This discussion has been included in the
297:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
295:Note: This discussion has been included in the
861:important that even if she loses, people will
754:"Portland Mayoral Candidates: Sarah Iannarone"
8:
1006:& RS sources helped. I’d also be ok to
981:that are not support for notability at all.
678:. The contrast is pretty readily apparent. -
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
956:exists, so if that were how it worked then
317:list of Oregon-related deletion discussions
550:per nom, or merge somewhere as suggested.
314:
294:
756:. WNYC: Think Out Loud. April 17, 2020.
1012:2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election
973:of what the person is getting covered
904:2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election
766:Farrley, Donovan (December 19, 2020).
509:2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election
482:2016 Portland, Oregon mayoral election
478:2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election
54:2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election
898:& RS sources added to article to
778:"Let's Rethink What a 'Bike Lane' Is"
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
758:(interview, with intro with content)
1098:than everybody else's candidacies.
488:, useful redirect and search term.)
1112:Yes, it does mention presidential
1086:town and city that has mayors can
836:writers or journalists to produce
480:, (brief bio & earlier run in
24:
1146:— For now i’d say this is quite
660:
99:Introduction to deletion process
776:Andrew Small (24 August 2018).
845:of nationalized coverage in a
1:
857:: that is, her candidacy was
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1200:
700:article is cited, but the
259:-- to get an article as a
1057:And that coverage is NOT
952:place that has elections
69:10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1173:Please do not modify it.
1164:20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
1154:to the article creator.
1131:20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
1108:18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
1074:08:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
1049:03:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
1021:16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
991:11:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
932:16:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
915:07:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
875:12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
827:17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
802:21:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
718:20:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
688:20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
656:19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
631:18:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
613:16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
582:16:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
560:16:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
539:16:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
521:15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
498:15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
468:15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
430:15:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
410:14:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
361:14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
329:14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
309:14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
289:14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1118:Knowledge (XXG):ROUTINE
1082:candidate for mayor in
1059:Knowledge (XXG):ROUTINE
969:take into account the
460:AlessandroTiandelli333
948:election campaign in
855:enduring significance
732:Knowledge (XXG):BASIC
87:Articles for deletion
745:The Washington Times
1004:Knowledge (XXG):HEY
940:No, candidates are
896:Knowledge (XXG):HEY
273:Christine O'Donnell
249:properly referenced
1008:merge and redirect
774:Bloomberg Media:
768:"Antifa in Focus"
623:John Pack Lambert
486:Knowledge (XXG):R
331:
311:
269:much more special
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
67:
1191:
1061:, as discussed:
1046:
1038:
1018:
960:candidate would
792:
790:
788:
771:
757:
748:
737:Washington, DC:
698:Washington Times
664:
611:
425:
418:
417:Another Believer
356:
349:
348:Another Believer
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
66:
64:
57:
34:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1181:deletion review
1042:
1034:
1016:
1002:, I agree that
979:primary sources
786:
784:
775:
765:
752:
751:New York City:
738:
706:Willamette Week
644:now-closed cafe
590:
428:
423:
416:
386:election could
359:
354:
347:
277:primary sources
181:
172:
137:
123:Sarah Iannarone
121:
118:
81:
78:
75:Sarah Iannarone
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1197:
1195:
1186:
1185:
1167:
1166:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1052:
1051:
1023:
996:
995:
994:
993:
935:
934:
924:Horse Eye Jack
917:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
772:
759:
749:
723:
722:
721:
720:
658:
648:David Eppstein
633:
615:
584:
562:
544:
543:
542:
541:
524:
523:
502:
470:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
420:
364:
363:
351:
333:
332:
312:
242:
241:
178:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1196:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1039:
1037:
1032:
1031:SportingFlyer
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
938:
937:
936:
933:
929:
925:
921:
918:
916:
912:
908:
905:
901:
897:
893:
890:
889:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:ten year test
848:
844:
839:
835:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
783:
779:
773:
769:
763:
760:
755:
750:
746:
742:
736:
735:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
677:
672:
667:
663:
659:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
632:
628:
624:
619:
616:
614:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
588:
585:
583:
579:
575:
570:
566:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
469:
465:
461:
457:
455:
453:
451:
449:
446:
442:
439:
438:
431:
426:
419:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:ten year test
394:
389:
385:
382:candidate in
381:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
357:
350:
344:
339:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:Cynthia Nixon
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
175:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1172:
1170:
1156:Celestina007
1143:
1113:
1096:more special
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1041:
1033:
1025:
1007:
999:
974:
970:
966:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
919:
899:
891:
862:
858:
854:
842:
837:
833:
819:Pete Forsyth
806:
785:. Retrieved
781:
761:
744:
710:Pete Forsyth
701:
697:
680:Pete Forsyth
665:
635:
617:
586:
568:
564:
547:
504:
473:
472:
440:
392:
387:
383:
379:
374:
370:
337:
268:
260:
252:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
208:free images
770:. Playboy.
676:Sho Dozono
373:exists in
62:Sandstein
1177:talk page
1017:Montanabw
1000:Weak Keep
501:see below
441:Weak Keep
261:candidate
37:talk page
1179:or in a
1152:refunded
1148:too soon
1114:election
847:WP:BLP1E
666:Comment:
621:notable.
592:Headbomb
505:Redirect
393:exploded
167:View log
108:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
1100:Bearcat
983:Bearcat
971:context
867:Bearcat
782:CityLab
762:Playboy
702:Playboy
640:WP:NPOL
552:Johnbod
513:Enos733
402:Bearcat
336:I vote
321:Bearcat
301:Bearcat
281:Bearcat
257:WP:NPOL
214:WP refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
1144:Delete
1123:Djflem
1088:always
1066:Djflem
1026:Delete
962:always
954:always
907:Djflem
815:WP:GNG
811:WP:HEY
794:Djflem
787:4 June
696:. The
694:antifa
671:WP:GNG
636:Delete
618:Delete
587:Delete
574:tedder
548:Delete
531:Djflem
490:Djflem
445:WP:GNG
388:always
371:always
245:WP:BLP
186:Google
144:delete
1121:here.
1084:every
1080:Every
958:every
950:every
946:every
900:merge
863:still
569:Merge
476:: -->
474:Merge
384:every
380:every
375:every
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
1160:talk
1127:talk
1104:talk
1070:talk
987:talk
967:does
928:talk
920:Keep
911:talk
902:or
894:per
892:Keep
871:talk
853:for
843:blip
823:talk
813:and
809:per
807:Keep
798:talk
789:2020
714:talk
708:.) -
684:talk
652:talk
627:talk
578:talk
565:Keep
556:talk
535:talk
517:talk
494:talk
464:talk
424:Talk
406:talk
355:Talk
343:this
338:keep
325:talk
305:talk
285:talk
253:hold
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
1010:to
975:for
942:not
838:new
834:own
567:or
507:to
458:.
236:TWL
165:– (
52:to
1162:)
1129:)
1106:)
1092:is
1072:)
989:)
930:)
913:)
873:)
859:so
825:)
800:)
780:.
764::
743:.
734:.
716:)
686:)
654:)
629:)
606:·
602:·
598:·
580:)
558:)
537:)
519:)
496:)
466:)
447::
408:)
327:)
319:.
307:)
299:.
287:)
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
1158:(
1125:(
1102:(
1068:(
1044:C
1040:·
1036:T
985:(
926:(
909:(
869:(
821:(
796:(
791:.
747:.
712:(
682:(
650:(
625:(
610:}
608:b
604:p
600:c
596:t
594:{
576:(
554:(
533:(
515:(
492:(
462:(
427:)
421:(
404:(
358:)
352:(
323:(
303:(
283:(
240:)
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:·
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.